Reliability of Wikipedia

Erin DulALES 204

21 March 2012

Wikipedia Assignment - FAQs

• How do I choose a stub?– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stub_lists– Try to choose one that you have good references for!

• My stub already has some information written?– 300-600 words must be your own– Make sure that the existing information is properly referenced if you

are planning to use it• What is a good reference for citation?

– If you are writing about a scientific subject, peer-reviewed papers are the best source

– If you are writing about a more general topic, I advise that you look at a similar article that has “good article” status to see what types of citations they use

Wikipedia Assignment - Reminders

• Blog post AND Wikipedia article are both marked and are due Friday at 17:00

• If you can’t figure out how to do something, the best way to get a quick answer is to look at the code for a different article– Ask your TAs if you need help!

Adding an image

• The best place to get an image is from Wikimedia Commons:– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page– These are images that Wikipedia users make available for free

reuse• Insert a file into your code:

– [[File:Example.jpg]]• Type the name of the Wikimedia Commons file into the

“Example.jpg” spot• Example:

– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_(science)– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lab_book_-_Lawrence_Be

rkeley_National_Laboratory_-_DSC08822.JPG

Questions about Wikipedia Assignment?

Please ask now!E-mail your TA or Erin questions!Remember that the best way to figure out how to code something is to look at another article!

Wikipedia

• Wikipedia was formally launched on 15 January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger

• Wales set one up and put it online on 10 January 2001

Types of Contributors

• The Performer• The Vandal• The Gardener

Performer

• Frequent edits• Dramatic self-

portrayal• Preferentially

edits text that s/he creates

• Moulds work to suit her/his ideas

Vandal

• Note: vandalism on Wikipedia is prohibited• Add, remove or change content in a

DELIBERATE attempt to sabotage the quality/integrity of Wikipedia– Add irrelevant obscenities, crude humor, blanking

pages and/or inserting obvious nonsense (see Wikipedia)

• Can result in being blocked

Gardener

• Frequent contributions• Focuses on organising and correcting• Usually edits in the user pages rather than

public talk pages

How does Wikipedia “police” their articles?

• Users monitor recent changes to articles

• Acts of vandalism are usually discovered quickly

Recent Changes• a specific list numbering recent edits, or a list of

edits made within a given time frame• Some wikis can filter the list to remove minor

edits and edits made by automatic importing scripts ("bots")

• the revision history shows previous page versions and the diff feature highlights the changes between two revisions

• Using the revision history, an editor can view and restore a previous version of the article.

Revision History

• Wikis are generally designed with the philosophy of making it easy to correct mistakes, rather than making it difficult to make them

• Though wikis are very open, they provide a means to verify the validity of recent additions to the body of pages

Revision History

• In case unacceptable edits are missed on the "recent changes" page, some wiki engines provide additional content control.

• It can be monitored to ensure that a page, or a set of pages, keeps its quality. A person willing to maintain pages will be warned of modifications to the pages, allowing him or her to verify the validity of new editions quickly. A watchlist is a common implementation of this.

• Some wikis also implement "patrolled revisions," in which editors with the requisite credentials can mark some edits as not vandalism. A "flagged revisions" system can prevent edits from going live until they have been reviewed.

Comparative studies on the reliability of Wikipedia

• How does Wikipedia compare to other encyclopedias?– What do we use

encyclopedias for?– Would we ever cite an

encyclopedia?

http://nowsourcing.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/encyclopedia.jpg

Nature Study (2005)

• Single blind study• 42 experts in scientific fields were given articles

related to their field– Asked to evaluate the number of errors or omissions in

the article– Wikipedia average = 4 errors/article– Brittannica average = 3 errors/article

• Wikipedia: more incorrect facts, articles often poorly structured

• Brittannica: more ommissionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Expert opinions - librarians

Pros• Found the presentation of

controversial subjects very well rounded

• Good coverage of current events

• Negotiation of final version of article

Cons• Researchers don’t go

further than Wikipedia when trying to understand a topic

• Using only Wikipedia = Big Mac diet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inception_ver3.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Academics/science and medicine

Pro• More accurate than

traditional news media• Good source for first

approximation/starting point for research

Con• “Inherent reliability issues”• Drug companies may edit

articles to take away side effects of drugs

• Cited sources – how accurate are they?

• Readability sometimes an issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Bias

• Coverage– Too much coverage in some areas: video games,

popular culture– “longer entry on lightsabers than the printing

press”– Liberal bias– American bias– Gender bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Conclusions???

• Tweet your conclusions!• When is it appropriate

to use Wikipedia? Why?• Are some articles better

than others? Why?• Is Wikipedia better or

worse than a traditional encyclopedia? Why?

• @JessL, #ALES204

http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/